Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday September 18, 2012 @08:45AM
from the you-can't-see-my-exculpatory-email dept.

ananyo writes "Climate scientist Michael Mann reported Monday that he and the University of Virginia in Charlottesville have prevailed in a court case against the conservative American Tradition Institute (ATI), which had sought access to emails he wrote while serving as a professor at the school from 1999-2005. Now at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Mann says the ruling supports the University of Virginia's argument than an exemption to the state's freedom-of-information law 'applies to faculty communications in furtherance of their work.' The Prince William County Circuit Court ruling came directly from the bench in and was not immediately available online. The Virgina Supreme Court tossed out a case against Mann in March. The state's conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, had, among other things, demanded access to the climatologist's emails, arguing that Mann might have manipulated data and thus defrauded the government in applying for scientific grants."

> "The state's conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, had, among other things, demanded access to the climatologist's emails, arguing that Mann might have manipulated data and thus defrauded the government in applying for scientific grants."

The greater irony is that others rated your comment as humorous (+4 Funny as I respond) and didn't see the outcome you suggest as the one all of us should hope for. Hopefully, he (Cuccinelli) will prevail on appeal. In which case, hopefully those who choose to make Cuccinelli's life miserable with disclosures of FOI requested data from his office will also prevail. As it stands currently, Cuccinelli, and anyone else working for the state, could abuse the citizens of the state of Virginia with little chan

Mann was part of the earlier email controversy [wikipedia.org]. So Cuccinelli, while no doubt political grandstanding for *his* own benefit, didn't just pull Mann's name out of a hat. There was at least some evidence from that earlier case that Mann may have been *ahem* "exaggerating" certain claims for his own benefit.

Now, how much of this is politics and personal aggrandizement on either side is up for debate of course.

No, there was no evidence. Had there been evidence, the Mann would have been condemned. This is just your average jackbooted terror tactics, to tyranically threaten those who testify the truth against treacherous dogma.

The way it works is that you, as part of the state's coercive apparatus has a duty to be a decent human being. Thus it was found at Nuremberg. Also known as "you don't get to get away scott-free from crimes committed in the name of the state".

A university professor is basically only responsible for coercing student to give back their papers on time...

Any correspondence, of anyone, can be quoted out of context. Targeting researchers working on climate change, demanding that they give you an easy source of mud for you to dig through, hoping you can score points in the press and with your political friends?

This is intimidation, nothing less. Not to mention the fact that responding to these demands takes enormous amounts of time, which does indeed prevent the researcher from doing his job. This is exactly like those frivolous DMCA notices we love to hate on slashdot.

Of course! Vigilantism as a way to ensure justice! how can I not see the brilliance of your scheme?

If someone is accused a specific wrongdoing which falls under the law, you can get a warrant to obtain the communications. If not, well, tough shit, you don't get to annoy people just because you don't like them or their ideas.

Why do you keep denying your crimes? Do you think it's OK to deny your crimes? We do know that you're still beating your wife, after all.

Pick up "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes, learn just how long this campaign has been going on. It didn't start with climate science, it follows exactly the same pattern as the previous campaigns against science on smoking, passive smoke, ozone depletion and acid rain (as well as less published denial campaigns against e.g. asbestos). It's even the same people and orga

> "The state's conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, had, among other things, demanded access to the climatologist's emails, arguing that Mann might have manipulated data and thus defrauded the government in applying for scientific grants."

Really, it doesn't matter if the emails are released or not. If they are not released, then there will be a whole "What are they trying to hide?!?!" campaign. If they are released, then no matter what is in the emails, the conservative pundits will find some sentence fragment to post on their blogs, which will then get posted to facebook and tweeted and retweeted, and it will be played on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and on Beck and on Hannity, and all of their followers will say "See? We told you something

A teacher who is also a taxpayer-funded researcher performing research that guides public policy certainly is in the same legal classification as a public servant. And communications in that capacity should be public.

Wrong. Being an" employee of the state" never means that all your emails are a matter of public record.

Public record laws vary; what matters is what a particular law specifically sets out as included. Several courts have held that a state open records law does not apply to personal email accounts but does apply to ex-officio ones (e.g. president@university.edu), or applies only to those emails in which state business is conducted. For example, Colorado's open records law applies to e-mail communications between more than two elected officials or public employees.

But one important takeaway is that anyone using a state email address is wise to conduct their personal business on their own accounts.

Unfortunately, this now appears to be true for some people's professional work as well. Many university climate research and other controversial programs now incorporate as private "Centers" that run their own email systems so as to provide researchers with an alternative to the state-funded email accounts. Corporate email accounts are generally afforded greater exemption from state open records laws even if the researcher is also an employee of the state.

Of course all your emails are not a matter of public record. But all of your work is. All of your emails regarding that work are. If you email Bob about your work and your niece's birthday party, then the email would be public record with the part about the niece redacted.

All you do in your capacity as someone who gets paid with public moneys is public record and accessible via a FOIA request, with the usual exceptions for national security and whatnot (which don't apply when there's a court case - the c

"Public records" means all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. Records that are not prepared for or used in the transaction of public business are not public records." VA Code 2.2-3701 [state.va.us]

IANAL, but it seems this case would likely hinge upon whether Prof. Mann is considered an employee of the State, and whether his emails were documenting transactions of public business.

Public records doesn't always mean all records. For example, you can request the finalized budget as a matter of public record as a citizen. You can't request all emails of the employees that had a part in the budget process as a citizen. There is some privacy expectation. Now the employees are not immune to search of government email in a legitimate government investigation. The AG in this case doesn't really have a compelling reason and his investigation seems like a fishing expedition to the court.

Not conservative. A conservative would want things to stay the same, to oppose human change for good or bad solely because its a human change, would want to conserve natural resources, be a "good steward of Gods creation" or whatever religious claim floats their boat of preserving the status quo.

Yes I know "political conservative" means the exact opposite since the neo's kicked all the normal people like myself (uh, more or less) out, so all we have left is the Santorums (the politician, not the "frothy liquid") and Rmoneys. The bigger point is you know a society is completely F'd when its words become doublespeak. When I was a kid it was a running joke that any country name including "peoples" "democratic" or "republic" almost always was the opposite. Its a dark day in America, I'm sad to say.

Well Romney types were in before the neocons. The Rockefeller republicans have been around a while although Romney's foreign policy is all neo.

But just vote libertarian. Some people see it as a throw away vote, but Perot's performance in the 90s actually got both sides talking economically and probably played a big part in getting the budget balanced towards the end of the 90s (unified budget, not actual). Unfortunately, it also made both parties come together and collude and make rules to disenfranchise the 3rd parties and their voters even more.

You only throw away your vote when you vote for someone who doesn't represent your interests, like for 99% of the population a -R or a -D. I'm voting -L. I used to vote -R and if they toss out the current crop of lunatics I might go back.

No, what made both parties come together and work things out was having a republican congress and a democrat president. Both knew that in order for anything to be done, they had to temper their ideals.

And a vote for libertarian is a vote for the incumbent no matter how you look at it. If you don't mind 4 more years of Obama, then go right ahead. If you are like me and trying to pick the least of two evils who will do the least amount of damage, then determine who is the greatest evil and vote for the most l

And a vote for libertarian is a vote for the incumbent no matter how you look at it.

Factually Wrong.Emotionally Correct.

A vote for a Libertarian, or Green, or whatever you choose is factually a vote for a person of X party.Only those who can't control their own emotions, and are cowards, would view it is a vote for or against a target of their choosing.

Any vote that isn't for a candidate capable of beating the incumbent allows the incumbent to stay in office. It is effectively voting for them. It's factually correct if you use simple tools like math. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader proved this a couple of times in recent history.

Here, lets play with this complicated math stuff. Suppose you have 10 voters. All anyone would need is 6 votes to have more then the incumbent to oust him. If those 6 votes are divided between someone likely to win and someone with no

Less then one quarter of Nader Votes could have gave us 4 years of Gore instead of Bush.

Show me where "could have" is a mathematically sound principle and I will agree. You are going off of assumption that Nader's voting base was almost entirely Democrat. From what i have read, 45% of Nader voters would vote for Gore, 27% would vote for Bush, and the remaining 28% would stay home.

Now, that being said, 28% is a large enough margin to have swung the victory back to the side of Bush, and not Gore, assuming they changed their mind and decided to vote. Or it could have just further solidified Gore.

Factually speaking, a vote for a Libertarian, Green or other minor party in the United States takes a vote away from which ever of the two major parties you would prefer to win. It's a well known flaw in first-past-the-post voting [wikipedia.org]. If you disagree you can take it up with Duverger [wikipedia.org].

The GP, however, is also incorrect, a vote for a libertarian is only some times equivalent to a vote for the incumbent. Specifically only when the voter would not have otherwise voted for the incumbent. This has nothing to do w

It's the fundamental problem of a two-party political system; it pays to oppose eachother. And opposing eachother means pushing eachother ever further into extremist corners of any debate.

For instance take "Obama-care". If you ask politicians it's either the highway to hell or the road to salvation. Few politicians will actually weigh the good and the bad and try to resolve any issues. It either has to stand exactly as it is or be reverted completely.

Most democratic systems share power among a larger number of political parties, forcing them to work together and to maintain a working relationship for the long term.

But of course the USA does not have a "two-party political system". There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties [usconstitution.net] at all. And there is in fact a richness of parties [wikipedia.org] (see the list of so-called minor parties underneath the majors). The only problem is nobody votes for any of them except R and D. I fantasize that it would be far better to have no parties at all, but I recognize that you can't outlaw them without making a mockery of liberty (freedom of association, anyone?).

It would be interesting to hear substantive ideas on why no parties beyond R and D ever gain traction at the national level in the USA.

The best explanation I have heard yet for this is the "scope" phenomena. Simply put, the alternate parties platform scopes are almost always very narrow, (IE: Single issue platforms or focused around a particular segment of interest such as the economy, to the exclusion of other interests such as foreign policy or social issues.) whereas the major party platforms are very broad.

Also, if the alternate party platform is enough "in line" with the major party, they may "absorb" that issue into their own plat

It sounds like you are not familiar with the common definition of a two-party system [wikipedia.org]. According to the common definition, the U.S. has a two party system because it is dominated by two parties, reagardless of the number of additional powerless parties that exist. For the U.S. to stop being a two-party system a third party needs to have a substancial pressence in congress.

I would not call it a conspiracy, they have created artificial barriers to entry on the national level.

Things like, if you do not hold 10% of the vote nationally, you can not participate in the national presidential debates.The two major parties have laws in place that gives them millions/billions from the national coffers for their campaigns.

Add to that the fact that if a third party gains enough signatures to get their name on the ballot, they will have there ballot access challenged by one of the two maj

Conservative – Progressive : stick to what works –trust we can adapt to new stuff

Left – Right : the system is rigged, so increase taxes and redistribute to make it fair –people are lazy, so reduce taxes to increase incentives

Politically there's also some other poles.

The "climate skeptics" don't fit either pole particularly because they're actually resisting "post modern science" where science and social values and social issues get all intermixed. Protesters hold up placards saying "we come armed only with peer reviewed literature" to protest against a new runway, but they don't hold up that placard when medical science says there's little evidence that GM crops are bad.

Likewise an environmentalist told me, "it doesn't matter if global warming isn't caused by man made CO2, because by forcing a cut of CO2 you cut production and you cut consumption –– it is about reducing GREED"

Social issues, morality, and ethics all wrapped up in "science".

The science part is there to a degree, but the case gets overstated significantly for political reasons.

Left -- the system is rigged, so increase taxes and redistribute to make it fair

I see this so often, but honestly think it is baloney. Some liberals eye others' stuff -- the homologues to Hannity and Beck -- but the *vast* majority of liberals do not believe that taxes should be increased to make a rigged system fair. There are two orthogonal concerns there. The first is social justice, which doesn't involve raising taxes at all. (Most social justice programs are generally cheap.) The second is about balancing the budget -- something that the GOP seems unable to do, but the Dems have a fine record. And the second is also about Kensyian economics, and liberals have the record on job creation by 2-1. (Rich people take money out of the system because they save moe. This slows down the economy. Poor people spend everything, and this raises demand and speed the economy. Trickle-down economics is about increasing the amount of investment money; however, we already have a glut of that.)

Really? the only balanced budget in recent history happened with a republican congress. I may be alone, but I think we might get an optimal outcome with Obama retaining office but congress shifting to a republican majority in both houses. Going by party in control of the house, Dem presidents with R house happened for the first time in 50 years under clinton. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html [adelphi.edu] is an interesting collection of data.

Yes, no problem, I added taxes just as an example. So without that awkward example, that leaves the basic difference as, the right looks for problems in the individual (eg. responsibility, incentive, lack of morality, etc.) and the left looks for problems in the system (eg. the banks, the lack of medical care, corporations, the loopholes in taxes, etc.)

And they can always argue because the world is both a system and individuals.

Maybe global warming tends to resonate more with the left because it looks so mu

When has language NOT been used in less than straightforward ways? Doublespeak and revisionist history aren't new tactics. "The House Committee on Un-American Activities," prosecuting free speech and thoughts, dated back to 1947. And that's obviously not the first either.

A conservative would want things to stay the same, to oppose human change for good or bad solely because its a human change, would want to conserve natural resources, be a "good steward of Gods creation" or whatever religious claim floats their boat of preserving the status quo.

What you're describing is Conservationism [wikipedia.org], not Conservatism.

Well... this right there -- the head of the EPA knew Nixon personally. Watch and decide for yourself whether Nixon believed in environmental issues, or was simply being politically expedient.

Nixon was. He admired them. He didn't know much about the environment, and frankly, he wasn't very curious about it. He never asked me the whole time I was at EPA -- the first time he appointed me or the second time -- "Is the air really dirty? Is something wrong with the water? What are we worried about here?" Reagan asked me that several times, when I worked there the second time. Nixon never did.

You attack Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency. You can't spell Reagan...

IF that quote is really in the GOP platform you'd have a front-page story. Of course, it isn't. Of course you're a troll. Republicans are not against "environmental regulation" they're against environmental extremism. They're against stopping progress over fetishism. They're against making decisions in a vacuum.

The AG, Cuccinelli, is conspiring with extremest political groups to suppress scientific research. To say the work was "publicly funded", therefore research personal have no private communications, is bullshit. It was and is a gross political smear.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. I propose that Michael Mann sue the AG and the American Tradition Institute for slander. As a first step he should request all communications between the AG and ATI to see if they conspired to wreck his career. Remember, the AG's work is "paid for with government money", so all the AG correspondence should all be "public". How does that shoe feel now?

If these records became public, Cuccinelli would clearly be found to be misusing his office. He invested significant resources in a purely political effort. This is misappropriation of public funds, along with a conspiracy to break the law with a non-governmental political organization. He clearly shared information with ATI that should have been not allowed outside his office. (This is exactly what Ken Starr did during the Clinton witch hunt. During the Watergate probe they planted insane smears in the press, none of which were true. Starr's office also broke confidentiality with the Republican operatives who were working the civil side of the conspiracy.)

The AG deserves to be sent to jail. That will never happen. When conservatives break the law they always get away with it, because law and order only applies to minorities and Democrats. The last time a conservative insider got put away was Scooter Libby, and he was taking a bullet for Chaney's leaking Valery Plame's status as a CIA operative. Chaney put the lives of CIA assets at risk. I would not be surprised if people died from this. If it did happen, we'll never know. The coverup was successful.

So if a person who is not conspiring with an extremest political groups to suppress scientific research or for some other commercial agency puts in a FOIA request for emails pertaining to tax payer funded research, should they be denied?

The purpose of the FOIA is for anyone's benefit, not just those with an Agenda. I would back the first person, government funded is really tax payer funded, regardless of the tax payer, therefore should NOT be denied FOIA.

While this is an awesome idea in theory, in practice, it just isn't tenable. So, if we went with this theory, should every government email be open to the public? So if a spy sends an email back to his handler, that email should be open to the public? If someone in the government gets an email from someone wanting to leave Cuba, that email should be open to everyone? If there are emails about an upcoming secret mission (say for the raid to get the next Osama Bin Laden), these should all be open to the p

Making a rule that says that is fine. But only for emails going forward. It shouldn't be applied to emails going backwards. Face it, most of us have some degree of personal and private emails. And the way we communicate with people we know well may not always be understood in the way it was intended by third parties.

Would you honestly be happy to have your last 20 years worth of work emails published on the web? If not, then you do understand the problem.

> If your work is paid for with government money, your work> emails should be public. Simple as that.

Agreed.

Also, if you receive government support like, say, food stamps, your grocery receipts should all be public. And if you live on welfare, disability, or a publically funded pension of some sort, any member of the public should be allowed to inspect your home upon request.

If you use public roads for transportation, anyone should be able to get detailed access to all your travels.

Yes, I see where it is going. Balance. How could anyone object to such accountability? You take free stuff which is intended to fill a defined function, you shouldn't be looked down on, but you should be accountable. Actually, and this is important, I would provide the free stuff in such a form that the very concept of "misuse" never arises. See below.

First, one correction though. Building and maintaining public roads is an obvious legitimate government duty for all the benefit of all the people. It doesn'

He's another of these Bush Patriot Act appointeeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Fisher

Do you recall the outcry over the political motivated dismissal of Attorney Generals and the subsequent cover up?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

The Patriot Act changed the way Attorney generals are appointed. Bush sacked a bunch of Attorney Generals because they wouldn't do political prosecutions and put a lot of conservative stooges in their places. One of those political stooges was this Michael Fisher, another was the the U.S. attorney in Alabama.

They went on to do a political prosecutions including prosecuting Dan Siegelman, the Democrat governor for Alabama, using a witness that claimed to have been at a meeting when a donation check was handed over.

The witness said the donation was for passing legislation, and thus a bribe not a donation, and he claimed to have witnessed the discussion and the signing of the check. However the check was signed days later so the witness was lying. However it did get the Democrat out, and a Republican in his place.

email is email. It contains more than simply work related stuff, and rarely contains anything useful to someone trying to judge the quality of some work.

If I had to publish all my email from work for the past 20 years simply because someone wanted to prove I was a terrible programmer, it would be massively humiliating, and wouldn't prove jack shit about my programming ability, which would be more easily done by demanding to look at the code I write.

The FoIA request is about intimidating climate research scientists, not about trying to determine the truth behind the science. The science is already in the public domain. It's well described, people can repeat it, add to it, or theorize as to how it could be wrong and devise experiments to determine whether those theories hold.

According to GOOG analytics my gmail account got over 2000 emails last month, times 18 months... You can't "just release everything" because some conversations have to remain private. HIPPA violations for students providing way too much detail about why they were out sick, etc. NDA info for unrelated topics. Closed source code license issues (so you're talking about a bug in non-free software and including code excerpts). Its a non-judicial punishment assigned by politican... err, until a judge overturns it, which is exactly what just happened.

Where they looking for all his email or all his email mentioning his research? I was under the impression it was only all concerning the research paid for by the government and not the the email tech support for his toaster oven.

Where they looking for all his email or all his email mentioning his research? I was under the impression it was only all concerning the research paid for by the government and not the the email tech support for his toaster oven.

They demanded all his email. The expressed reason was to fish through them for any evidence of fraud.

Let me start out by saying that I don't have any dog in the global warming fight, whatsoever (don't own any stock/have no affiliation with big oil OR big green)

I question the equivalence here. "Big green"? Big oil made 137 billion dollars in profits in 2011 and owns more politicians than you can shake a stick at. How many billions of dollars does "big green" make in a year and how many senators do they control?

But I won't take it as far as the anti-human agenda of many of the fundie AGW supporters.

Anti-human? You do realize the fossil fuel FUD about "Al Gore wants to TAX YOUR BREATHING!" is complete BS, right? Coal is the target of AGW supporters. Not humanity. You seem to be judging the movement by the extremists. That's always a foolish move: you wouldn't say that Anne Coulter represents America, would you?

If anything, I say release all the emails, release all the data, be as open and transparent as possible. Funny how the people who scream about openness the most are the first to hide when the request comes their way.

Okay, put your money where your mouth is. What is your personal e-mail address and password? Where are the e-mails from the fossil fuel industry? The issue here is not data, the issue here is e-mails. As in they were fishing for something to smear the guy with. The data is out there for legitimate criticisms to be made.

You are confusing data that Phil Jones at the CRU deleted (which was a copy, the original data is still available from original sources) with Michael Mann. The data and methods for Mann's original "Hockey Stick Graph" are located here. [psu.edu]

Well, I'm convinced climate change is a real threat that can't be solved by happy thoughts. Drugs and terrorism, on the other hand, are not serious problems in my book. Furthermore, I don't see anyone giving the government carte blanche to step on our civil rights to fight global warming. But I'm glad you claim to find humor in it.

Let me start out by saying that I don't have any dog in the global warming fight, whatsoever (don't own any stock/have no affiliation with big oil OR big green). I think that, as a whole, people need to conserve resources and embrace new technologies to make the world a cleaner place. But I won't take it as far as the anti-human agenda of many of the fundie AGW supporters..

The purportedly "anti-human agenda" of the "fundie AGW supporters" is almost entirely a myth created by the deniers. In general, these are scientists working very hard to try to understand the atmosphere, who are being attacked by people who have no interest in understanding the research, only in discrediting it.

That being said, why would you NOT want to release emails/research?

Because releasing the email wouldn't be the end of it-- it's the beginning. It's their expressed intent to waste all of his time, so that he never does any actual work again. Every typo in the email will spur a query: "what did you mean by xx?" and if he doesn't answer immediately, a flurry of blog posts about withholding information and not answering questions. Every single statement of fact will spur another FOIA demand (note that the word "request" is a euphemism): "We demand that you give us all the information in your files you used to support statement Y, and also all of the information in your files that may support the opposite conclusion which you withheld from the public". And, for that matter, every statement of opinion will trigger a FOIA demand. There's no limit on number of FOIA requests-- they can file a dozen requests a week, and every single one must be answered.

And if, by chance, you wrote about a preliminary analysis that differs in any way from the final analysis, or speculated about a result, or failed to draw a conclusion the very first time you saw some data-- oh, you're going to spend the rest of your life explaining that. A computer model that had an error that you found and fixed? We will use that to completely discredit you and everybody you know.

"Why not release the email" you say?

OK, you first. I want every e-mail you ever sent-- I want all your passwords, and root access to the e-mail servers-- and here's what I intend to do: I am going to destroy you and to discredit you personally and professionally. Failing that, I intend to destroy and discredit everybody you may have communicated with personally or professionally. Nothing will be considered private; if you ever accidentally mentioned anything about your personal life, consider it public knowledge. And if you expressed a less-than-flattering opinion of anybody, it will be out in public.

And I don't care anything about facts, only appearances. Any offhand opinion you may have typed is fair game, any typos you've made. If you've ever typed the words "I don't understand"-- well, that will be headline news: "admits he doesn't understand the science!" If you've ever been wrong, well, that will also be headline news-- and I have a team of people to comb through them in exacting detail with the intent of picking out anything that might be useful.

It just gives the conspiracy theorists more fuel for their fires!

And you think "give people who have stated that they intend to destroy you personally and professionally by any means that they can" unlimited access to comb through your email on a fishing expedition won't give them more fuel? Are you so personally pure that you've never ever even once written anything in a private email that could be misinterpreted by people who intend to damage you and don't care about facts?

Here's a suggestion for you. Have you actually read the "climategate" emails? Not just the selected excerpts picked out of context to discredit the scientists, but the whole file, from the beginning? Try it. (And if you can, not just the first 2000 emails released by t

The saying is "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof." For a claim that the laws of physics are exactly the same for human generated carbon dioxide as for carbon dioxide measured in a laboratory, measurements used to understand the surface temperature of all of the planets with atmospheres in the solar system (as well as one moon), and supporting atmospheric science that has been known since the late 1800s, what kind of proof might you demand? Perhaps you'd want detailed numerical models to match with the back of the envelope calculations, and you'd want to ask nineteen different groups on four continents to make different computer models; you'd want temperature measurements taken from a variety of different methods-- say, ground, ocean, balloon, and satellite-- to all agree; you'd want satellite measurements of infrared; you'd want vertical temperature profiles...

Well, ok. We've got all that. But it turns out that, if someone has a profit motive to deny the facts, or a political agenda funded by the people with a profit motive to deny the facts, no possible amount of data can change their mind.

What's that other saying? Oh, yes: "It's hard to get a man to understand something when he is being paid to not understand..... "

Go on, I'm fascinated. How do you make a direct measurement of temperature?

Ideal gas thermometer? But there's no such thing as an ideal gas. Anyway, the ideal gas thermometer is only based on the model pV = nRT. A model that is chosen because it's nice and linear. Not like any thermometer in the real world. Or any gas.

Of course, it all makes sense now. There is no increasing temperature. Those dumb scientists don't know what they're talking about. Pah. zeroth law gives us that objects at equilibrium are at

The estimated temperature of the Sun's inner core is about 15.8 million K. I don't believe that number was reached by flying a grad student through the sun with a thermometer. Unless someone has invented a time machine, no one was measuring temperatures for the
last hundreds of thousands of years with a thermometer. It's all proxy.

Temperature data back to 1850 is pretty good, yes some adjustments are necessary, but the denial community can't decide whether they like that or not. If it is adjusted, "LOOK it's been adjusted", if not "LOOK you didn't adjust for that". Deniers like Watts and McKintyre have been unable to find anything significantly wrong with any of the temperature record. Watts inadvertently confirmed the USA temperature record with his surface statiosn project. McKintyre put in dozens of FOI requests to the University of East Anglia for its temperature data so he could analyse it. He has not yet provided any analysis even though he has had the data for a couple of years.

Prior to 1850 the records depend on proxies because there weren't enough thermometers. But that works both ways. Deniers use the temperature data to point at things like the little ice age and medieval warm period, but then say the record is inacurate. Double standards?

As you will remember the BEST project funded by deniers like the Koch brothers endorsed teh existing science.

If you have any evidence suggesting the temperature record is incorrect I suggest you publish it.

Watts published an entire paper on siting problems for temperature recording stations. But in any event, even temperature going "all the way back" to the 1800s doesn't do much to help us with the problem of a geologic time scale. We can see that temperatures are cyclical, but on which side of the slope are we? Probably something in the magnitude of the interval between ice ages is about as fine as one should cut it.

"Watts published an entire paper on siting problems for temperature recording stations."which were dealt with. And when you move what he considers problems the data still holds. SO that argument is dead. so shut up unless you have actual new data.Next:"geologic time scale"what you, and everyone else with argument from 1970 seem to fail to realize is that we are not talking about warming at a geological scale. We are talking about a much FASTER warming. This isn't thousands of years, its 100-200 years.

Oh, and becasue you didn't see the memo* the change is ON TOP OF normal cycles. Not in liue of, on top of. SO we can see the normal cycle, and the see warming on top of it. When the cycle is 'cooling' we don't return to previous temperature. What happens is about increase slows, and sometime goes flat, but doesn't return to the previous cooler temperature.

I used to believe in public discourse in scientific matter. Now I see all that does is cause people to spread lies and disinformation when the science is counter to there money making . Anti-vaxers, anti-fluoride, climate denialists,.. gah. SO any ignorant people sure they are correct in their ignorance. The n given a platform to speak there ignorance.

I think that we should go back into ivory towers.. preferable ivory tower with guns mounted on them. Even better: an education system the teaches critical thinking and science. Barring that, towers with guns. And rest assured the guns design by science will be far superior then any one else's guns.

One thing you're missing is the condition of the data. Unfortunately, it's not very good, especially temperature data.

And one thing you're missing is that there are multiple sources of data from independent methods of measurement, with data analysis being done by multiple independent groups around the globe. This is not simply one single data set that is ambiguous; there is everything from balloon measurements to satellite infrared, and even gravity measurements of the thickness of polar ice taken by satellites.

Most notably, there is the Berkeley independent reanalysis of temperature data ("Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature"), which was done explicitly to try to address the claims of bias in the data: http://berkeleyearth.org/ [berkeleyearth.org] . This is the work of which climate skeptic Anthony Watts said--before the results were released-- "I will believe this study", and which, as it turns out, shows results that pretty much lie exactly on top of the graph produced from the NOAA data, the NASA data, and even the CRU data. (see the comparison here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071 [bbc.co.uk] )

There are gaps, there are insturmentation issues, there are siting issues

All of which are addressed.

, and, the 800lb gorilla in the room, there's just the simple fact that climate changes happen in geologic time frames, and we literally don't have any direct measurements of that scale.

And that is an "800lb gorilla" for what reason, exactly? The question is about the effect of human-generated carbon dioxide over time scales of decades-- questions about the temperature record over time scales of millions to billions of years ("geologic time frames") is of great scientific interest, but not really relevant to criticizing the record over time scales five to eight orders of magnitude shorter.

So we must proxy, and normalize, and adjust, and model. Really, I don't think anyone can definitively prove anything one way or the other yet.

Sorry, but this is what science does: take data, analyze it, and compare it to models. Science is remarkably good at this.

Another thing science is remarkably good at is comparing two different models and determining which one works. The problem is, there isn't a credible model that doesn't show global warming. The deniers don't have any models. (Haven't you ever wondered how come the results from climate modelling are often critiqued, but the critics never show their own models? That's because they don't have any.) There have been many attempts to find a model with negative feedback loops that cancel out the greenhouse effect, but none of these have ever worked even at the top level.

The "denier" claims aren't falsifiable, because there isn't actually any model to falsify. Their entire model consists of "you're wrong".

Isn't that kind of dumb? It's like there's a guy standing at the edge of an overflowing swimming pool with a running garden hose and he claims "you can't prove that it's *my* water spilling out of the pool, therefore I don't have to turn the hose off".

The change in the carbon 12/carbon 13 ratio in the atmosphere is a direct fingerprint of human derived CO2 from burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are depleted in C13 because the plants that they came from preferred the lighter C12 isotope. The increase in the C12/C13 ratio is direct evidence that the source is fossil fuels.

What is that saying about outrageous claims? I guess that rule does not apply if your position matches a certain political platform.

Exactly! You should not be able to make the outrageous claim that artificially increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, an empirically proven greenhouse gas, by approximately 30% has no effect on global temperatures just because your position matches a right-wing political platform.

Only someone in a cognitive bubble could possible believe these snippets cast a pall of the science. Go educate yourself, and but that, I mean try to understand what the counter-arguments are -- not by reading counter-counters, but by actually reading the original source material well enough so that you can explain it accurately.

Your comment smacks heavily of "If he has nothing to hide, why is he fighting to hide things?" Here's an alternate explanation for why he's fighting too hard: The professor was personally offended by what he probably saw as a mob of science-denying jackals that were to sure to pick at his emails, find some quote, take it horribly out of context and trumpet it in the news as loudly as could be, front page headlines blaring. And then when a correction is published showing he did no wrong, that correction will be published on the 5th page of the middle section of the newspaper where none will ever see it.

It's hard not to be personally insulted in such a case. Hell. I'm starting to feel more than a touch offended on his behalf. I know in such a case, even if there was nothing I had ever written that could be misconstrued, I would fight bitterly and with all my reserves to thwart such an attack on purely personal grounds. As someone on slashdot, I'm surprised you don't realize that sometimes people fight even losing battles purely on principle.

Everything? all personal information? Are we suppose to stop all work every time these damn idiots request information? This is about an attack on scientists in order to stop there work and cherry pick quotes becasue the science doesn't back these religious blow hards.